Tuesday, March 29, 2022

The Ukraine post

As awful as it is, the current situation of war in Europe and looming World War III lifts my spirit because I have lived with an unrecognized war my whole life and now the normies get to taste their own medicine. It really helps to normalize my feelings about cops when the average person feels the same way about Russian soldiers and even has explicit permission to incite on social media. Welcome to the warrior club which is really just the human condition anyway. Because I am a man, my sexuality is criminal by feminist laws, and because I am an activist I am acutely aware of that fact. The normies believe their war on sex is not a war because it is just something one does, like human sacrifice or slavery in other times was perceived as similarly apolitical: so successful has feminism become.

Wars of aggression used to be normal too, and I agree it is more civilized to regard them as crimes. The war on victimless sex is a war of aggression which is now completely socially acceptable, however. When someone like Virginia Guiffre employs the violence of the state to loot Prince Andrew, she is applauded like one might applaud the Vikings for marauding or the Roman empire for expanding, if one lived in their times. Victims of the sex laws are afforded exactly zero sympathy no matter what happens to them, be it death like Epstein or looting or anything in between.

I sympathize with victims of wars of aggression INCLUDING the war on sex. I do not share this supposedly civilized society’s blind spot or excuse of fake sexual abuse to justify war. To me that carries just as much weight as any old “reason” to conquer another peaceful group and steal their resources. The feminists might as well state their laws are to provide Lebensraum for women for all I care, because that’s how I read them anyway. Society has no inhibitions: whatever a woman gains by sexual accusations no matter how empty and no matter what a man loses, she is always celebrated and society always screams for more. Individual verdicts are sometimes overturned or reduced on appeal, but the trend towards ever more criminalization of sexuality shows no sign of abating.

I do stand with Ukraine, but in the proper perspective as equal victims to so many men (and some women) whom society does not regard as victims at all. Feminism is about destroying our lives, and their preferred method being a slow death by prison rather than a quick bullet or bomb only makes it more odious, if anything. And I realize that feminism is unlikely to go away without a cataclysmic crisis. Therefore, I welcome World War III as much as I fear it. COVID was not strong enough to slow the pace of antisexual legislation anywhere in the world, but now at least Ukraine is facing a greater priority. If that is what it takes, who am I to complain? Most of us will probably not personally benefit from the downfall of feminism, but we get to die as men rather than caged animals.

In a nutshell, Putin knew his economy was in trouble, but the thought he still had a strong military that could be leveraged. With a pretext of NATO expansion in the mix, he went ahead and staked the country on Plan Z. One month in, it can be summed up as a war of attrition which will either destroy the Russian Federation along with more or less of Ukraine or us all too if it escalates. There is no off-ramp in sight and I have no idea how it will end except I don’t think Ukraine can lose and I don’t think Russia can win.


Jack said...

What you have just described is that everything boils down to violence. If you can threaten with violence you get away with what you want (including sex of course). Women love and respect that.

That is not good news for us. We can benefit from two enemies like feminism and imperialism destroying one another, but there's little we can muster in terms of violence ourselves. We shall always be on the side-line, hoping to reap slims picking and to collect bread crumbs from the banquet of violence taking place way above our heads.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that's why I thought the international ban on wars of conquest was a fine idea, which should be consistently applied. Feminism is a war of conquest using "sexual abuse" as an excuse, defined however they want.

But less violence is not where we are headed. Might is right, in realpolitik. The USA has been practicing it all our lives to the point that they got normalized as world police, but of course others can play that game too and perhaps outdo them. Not Russia alone, but possibly a new Eurasian empire is emerging:


The AF said...

All I know is that the moment the Berlin Wall came down, things started to go pear shaped for male sexuality.

Far more likely of course that the rise of the Internet was the main culprit, but there is likely a connection between the lazy comfort of the West since the end of the Cold War and the excesses of feminism and more recently wokism.

Yes of course violence settles everything. And history celebrates the winners, just as the terrorist suffragettes are lauded as moral campaigners today. Unfortunately for Eivind's ephebo friends, the world doesn't change through rainbows and unicorns.

Of course, the most violent thing we can do is with our words. But Jack once told me it was cruel to call feminists 'hags'.

Eivind Berge said...

The campaign telling people to report men for "staring" at the Underground has already been topped:


Streets are next, with big signs reminding us that every interaction can be harassment, now down to the last little "attention." 97% of women are victims, which is surely an underestimate by these standards.

The full list: Flirting, Catcall, Compliment, Hug, Joke, Touching, Little Kiss, Attention, Staring, Photo, Drink, Number, Grinding, Grabbing, Groping.

This is how much society hates us for being men. We can't walk down the street anymore without feeling the hate which is now showed into our face everywhere. Masculinity is redefined into criminality with literally every last interaction covered at a woman's whim, as well as non-interactions such as looking. There is no way to know if "attention" or asking for a number or whatever is "unwanted" without trying, so the idea is that men must ALWAYS feel threatened with being reported to the feminist police state and associated charities for everything we do including just existing since there is no way to falsify that a man was staring or paying attention to a female. And this is without even getting into age gaps and actual sexual interactions that they get to redefine to rape after the fact.

Eivind Berge said...

And female supremacy doesn't stop with criminalizing all of masculinity. It is also important to make it maximally convenient for women to accuse, and here is yet another innovation to that effect. With destroying a man's life in the balance, on the other hand it is too much to ask an accuser to even show up to testify and be cross-examined. Let her simply prepare a video carefully coached by the abuse industry:


Dominic Raab

United Kingdom government official

Secondly, we’re rolling out the ability for victims of rape to pre-record their evidence to five more courts, ahead of a full nationwide rollout later this year.

Pre-recording spares victims the ordeal of giving evidence under the glare of the courtroom.

Angry Harry joked that in the future women would just need to send a postcard to get men convicted. We are almost there.

Men live in an atmosphere saturated with complete hate. All the resources of this civilization are geared towards destroying our lives over our sexuality as the supreme priority of the state, with zero resistance from men either. WW3 cannot come soon enough.

Eivind Berge said...

Or more correctly, the hate is against all of sexuality, with women only marginally less hunted. The latest victim of the female sex offender charade is Rebecca Williams, a 21-year-old hottie teacher:


An inkling of common sense prevailed as she was "spared" jail, but her prosecution for being nice to a 15-year-old boy is still profoundly disturbing to any decent person. I am tortured by the conceptual madness of turning the luckiest experience a boy can have into "abuse." How society can be so absurdly sick in the head as to perpetrate this atrocity keeps me up at night as zombie horror, because what else than zombiehood can explain the absence of an uprising? The intuition that the boy is lucky rather than abused is one of the most salient qualia humans can have, at least vicariously. How, then, is "society" able to turn that 100% upside down, if not a society of zombies?

Dilto said...

Re the human condition"...

The TRUE human condition, or world we live in, is the history of human madness mainly thanks to the 2 married pink elephants in the room and has never been on clearer display than with the deliberate global Covid Scam atrocity — see “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” at w w w d o t CovidTruthBeKnown d o t c o m

"2 weeks to flatten the curve has turned into...3 shots to feed your family!" --- Unknown

““We’re all in this together” is a tribal maxim. Even there, it’s a con, because the tribal leaders use it to enforce loyalty and submission. ... The unity of compliance.” --- Jon Rappoport, Investigative Journalist

Eivind Berge said...

Maybe so, but Covid-19 fell out of the news the day Russia invaded Ukraine, for the most part. Now everything is about the war (and financial fallout) plus the usual antisex. Consequences for supply chains and the global economy already look more severe than from covid even if the shooting war remains confined to Ukraine.

Gail's latest post also worth reading:


There is a huge resource depletion issue that authorities in many countries have known about for a very long time. The issue is so frightening that authorities have chosen not to explain it to the general population.

Perhaps they can keep up with blaming distractions all the way to the end, but distractions get progressively worse and there is no turning back to something as comparatively mild as covid. The next crisis will either be a war on our territory or something equally bad like a famine.

Jack said...

"The next crisis will either be a war on our territory or something equally bad like a famine."

Or the can could get kicked down the road for many more years.

I wonder whether the younger generations even notice something is wrong. They grow up with the gadgets and taboos of their generations just like you grow up to eat the food you're given where you were born.

Anonymous said...

@ Eivind-Obviously this is not a blog on geopolitics, but Putin is apparently in the process of moving his more modern tanks from the border with China all the way to the Ukraine-
Prepping - The PsyOps Campaign in Eastern Europe @ the y/tube channel Pinball Preparedness.
Til now, he's mainly been using old tanks and other equipment against the Ukes. Or so the story goes.
Why? I'm not sure but Russians can be very subtle at times.
The transfer of the newer tanks will take about a month, it is claimed, and then the fireworks can start again.

Eivind Berge said...

No, I think Russia already used their best tanks and all kinds of elite troops. They might regroup, reinforce and try more, but what we have seen is already as good as it gets for them.

Very funny news, in Norway the police are guarding Ukrainian refugee women. We can see that any romantic attention from men is by definition considered exploitation which must be preemptively prevented by special feminist police patrols...

Kvinnelige ukrainske flyktninger i Kvinesdal må beskyttes mot innpåslitne menn som kommer langveisfra. Politiet skal nå patruljere på kvelds- og nattetid.
– Det kommer mannfolk helt fra Østlandet som vil ha kontakt med damene her. De ønsker rett og slett å utnytte sårbare, traumatiserte mennesker. Det er skremmende, sier mottaksleder Liv Ellen Omdal til Fædrelandsvennen.
I løpet av de siste dagene er det blitt innlosjert omkring 90 ukrainske flyktninger i Kvinesdal, rundt 60 av dem 60 kvinner. Bare noen dager etter har ledelsen ved mottaket iverksatt strenge tiltak for å skjerme flyktningene mot uønsket oppmerksomhet. Politiet har også satt i verk tiltak etter at de tidligere i uka måtte rykke ut for å ta hånd om en mann med uærlige hensikter.
– Vi var på stedet etter melding om at uønskede personer hadde oppsøkt senteret, og at noen hadde blitt redde. Politiet har nå også sendt ut meldinger i eget system om at vi skal patruljere på kvelds- og nattetid ved mottakene i Agder, sier lensmann Asbjørn Skåland i Flekkefjord og Kvinesdal.
Utlendingsdirektoratet er klar over at flyktningmottak nå opplever uønsket oppmerksomhet.
– UDI er kjent med at personer som ønsker å utnytte asylsøkere, kan oppsøke mottak, sier fagleder Gro Anna Persheim i Utlendingsdirektoratet.

I am impressed that men show so much initiative. Apparently not all Norwegian men are wankers. If they had cared anywhere near as much about politics as trying to get laid we would not have a feminist police force wielding feminist laws to stop them.

The AF said...

Yes, it's the same in the UK : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682063/Sex-predator-fears-women-refugees.html

Yet in the same paper, on the same day, they are reporting of 'mass rapes' and 'genocide' of civilians in the Ukraine : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682581/Some-Ukraine-towns-WORSE-Bucha-Locals-say-Russian-troops-killed-children.html

It is better that young Ukrainian women risk rape and death at the hands of Russian soliders than having a mutually beneficial relationship with a lonely middle-aged Western man. See, this is where Eivind's view that 'everything has to collapse' is revealed as futile, nihalistic nonsense. Nothing will overcome feminism, other than a change in the root cause : the imbalance in sexual power between older females and younger females (and a reversed imbalance in political power). Instead of calling for nuclear armageddon or 'peak oil', we should embrace transhumanism, as that is the only way feminism can ever be put back in its bottle.

Notice also that nobody ever will make a link between the majority of NGO refugee aid workers being white females and the majority of refugees (before the Ukraine) being black or arab young males, even though there have been documented cases of female aid workers having sex with even underage asylum seekers.

amelio said...

"young Ukrainian women risk rape and death at the hands of Russian soliders"

No proof of that yet. It's part of the global propaganda machine you stand up against.

Eivind Berge said...

They definitely risk death simply by being in a war zone. Thousands of civilians have been killed -- how many deliberately and whether Russian soldiers are raping women... I can't say. I know there is propaganda on both sides and I suspend judgment about war crimes for now.

Meanwhile there is hysterical protection of Ukranian women in our countries before any man is even accused of a sex crime, so the AF's predictions are coming true on that.

I am all for Transhumanism if you mean health and longevity and rejuvenation -- so we get real young women not porn and sexbots and simulations.

Let's look at the state of the art at that. Skip to 6:50 (hours) for Aubrey de Grey's recent talk:


He can barely keep sexual accusations at bay and most of his speech is about getting cancelled, but what he says about longevity research isn't encouraging either. There might finally be a metformin study, but that's it. Nothing to substantially slow down or repair aging on the horizon. He sounds much less optimistic now than he did 20 years ago.

Safe to say there won't be anything in our lifetime, and I really don't think humanity is headed for the Singularity because we can barely afford to keep the lights on going forward, and other basic necessities, much less do the required research. War or collapse might soon destroy the infrastructure to ever get it done.

amelio said...

"They definitely risk death simply by being in a war zone."

Obviously but then the sex element "raped by russian soldiers" is missing...

"Thousands of civilians have been killed "

We don't know actually but those who died were nearly exclusively men, it should ne noted. Especially as there's hardly any distinction between Ukrainian male civilian men and ukrainian male soldiers (except for older males): they are all conscripted !

A valid comparison can be made here between the risk of being hit by a bomb and the risk of being hit on by a stranger.

Anonymous said...

A North Korean defector said she viewed the US as country of free thought and free speech – until she went to college there:


Jack said...

"... there have been documented cases of female aid workers having sex with even underage asylum seekers." Some years ago an elderly man in Germany was proud to tell me his daughter was "sponsoring" a young Afghan asylum-seeker. Male needless to say.

I don't see what "embracing transhumanism" means. Sexbots were promising but they've been out of the news of late. Has R&D into sexbots been stifled already? If transhumanism means some medical wonders I don't believe in that. Modern medicine is great at prolonging but lousy at curing. Don't expect any more quantum jumps in medicine, only diminishing returns. Another dead end, just like the oil-based industrial revolution. Soon thanks to the wonders of modern medicine there will be 10 Alzheimer patients to feed for every working adult.

The AF said...

And so it begins...


This is what transhumanism means. Eternal youth, superhuman beauty, intelligence etc.

I agree that our generation will probably miss out. I doubt if I'll live to my 70's with my health problems, but if I do, then perhaps there might be some treatment to significantly reduce arthritic pain, maybe reduce wrinkles a little. That's probably the best me and Jack can hope for. It will be the teenagers today, who call us paedos for glancing at their beauty, who will never grow old and live to be 500 in perfect health.

Eivind Berge said...

Defense minister of Norway resigns after it has come to light that he had a relationship with an 18-year-old woman when he was 50 in 2005.


This age gap wasn't criminal back then and still isn't (he is not accused of "power imbalance" either), but the taboo is strong enough that all guilty men must be cancelled from society.

This is how much they hate us, gentlemen. Our very soul is incompatible with society. There is zero tolerance for masculinity and sexuality. Whenever you shine a light on sexuality, it is always found to be crime and/or abuse and the man must be persecuted with all the resources at the disposal of this civilization. And of course if there is not yet a criminal law, they must make one.

Anonymous said...

Your Ukraine war analogy to feminism is excellent, but your analysis, just like peak oil, is complete garbage.

Russia tolerated the Jewish Ukrainian government (installed and controlled by the disgusting feminist USA) for eight years as it killed thousands of Russian Christians in the East. The Jewish Ukrainian government also pushed homosexuality, transexualism and feminism on its population. The Jewish Ukrainian government had a plan to attack the Russian Christians in the East to finish them off, and continue invading into Russia itself. Russia's intelligence knew about their plan, and Russia moved first and moved hard, catching the Jewish Ukrainian government and USA entirely off guard.

This is a big problem for the Jewish Ukrainian government and USA because they were planning to create a mess inside Russia to push for the regime change of Vladimir Putin, who is not in agreement with the WEF plan. Instead, Putin has destroyed the Jewish Ukrainian government's military, consolidated his power within Russia, and now, is moving to destroy the US Dollar's dominance by creating a new international reserve currency with the help of India and China (brought upon the USA by their own sanctions).

This is excellent news, because when Russia finishes demilitarizing Ukraine and setting up this new financial system with its allies, the USA economy will implode at a much higher rate than what it is currently, especially when China sells its treasury bonds (because it won't need them for trade anymore) and re-takes Taiwan (which it will do after it sells its treasury bonds so its funds are not confiscated by the USA, like with what happened to Russia).

Russia and China do not push a feminist agenda upon the world, in fact, it is almost the exact opposite scenario, especially regarding China. With the disgusting feminist regime of the USA economically imploded, militarily humiliated, and geographically isolated due to the new international reserve currency, it will be impossible for the USA to continue to support feminism around the world through NGO funding and ambassador bullying; there won't be enough resources or interest to do it outside the borders of the USA.

Russians fired the first shot against the global feminist regime of the USA and its partners in Ukraine, who ironically brought it upon themselves with their overreach. It is far better than a global collapse, it is a global reorganization that will greatly curtail the power of the disgusting USA feminist regime.

Jack said...

Total defeat for Zemmour in France, in spite of Zemmour being by far the most articulate and innovative candidate. Marine Le Pen, who was dubbed "the losing machine" by some critics, is going to lose in the 2nd round again.

Zemmour stood no chance as a male candidate because 1) he carries anti-feminist baggage 2) he has poor looks. This is feminist age democracy. The system is locked into electing woke figureheads who will not alter an iota the feminist grip on power. The MGTOW back then, and now the incels, have been right in assessing that the system became irreversible once the women had the vote.

All the same, I wish Russian trolls on this and other forums would first go and live in Russia, and only then report from there.

amelio said...

"All the same, I wish Russian trolls on this and other forums would first go and live in Russia, and only then report from there."

Do YOU live in Russia or have any direct experience ?

Otherwise, your take on Zemmour and french politics is quite right.

Anonymous said...

Porn is OK for kids, according to this study:


Eivind Berge said...

Sure, most supposed reasons are bullshit moral panic, but they get this wrong:

"The video is telling kids that watching porn is normal, so watching it shouldn’t make you feel bad — especially since pornography consumption has a stigma surrounding it — but it’s also not realistic, so don’t base your actual sexual experiences off pornographic videos."

The problem is you can't just tell the male brain that porn is unrealistic because it will damage him all the same if he masturbates to it. That's like telling fat people they can eat all the fast food they want as long as they keep in mind that it's not a realistic version of the diet hunter-gatherers adapted to. Doesn't work that way because getting fat, or in this case damaging your erectile function from porn, happens unconsciously. It is an evolutionary trap. It is not a moral problem and nothing to do with "stigma" or attitudes or intellect. Porn is bad for boys not primarily because they are kids but because it is bad for all men (arguably even worse for adolescent boys though if they start with porn before sex, since it's hard to unlearn bad habits). They should feel bad about porn for their own good because of the bad effects -- or learn the hard way when they fail to perform with girls (at which point the mainstream still isn't helping because they lie about the link to porn and masturbation, so the hapless boy will remain sexually dysfunctional until he discovers the nofap movement or male sexualists).

Eivind Berge said...

It's like telling people they shouldn't base their digestion on what they eat. Seriously, that level of stupidity. Boys can't help but base their actual sex on porn and masturbation no matter what you tell them or what they believe, because these are neurological changes happening on a deeper level than anything you can influence by willpower!

At the time of the Kinsey Report in the 1940s, less than 1% of men under 30 had erectile problems (and less than 3% of those aged 30–45). Now that figure is 30% or more! All because of high-tech porn and masturbation (which only increased to a lesser extent, so most of the blame can be put on porn).

The AF said...

@Eivind - boys (and incel men) have always masturbated. Even apes masturbate. There must be an evolutionary reason for this. I doubt if boys masturbate more because of porn tubes.

You claim both that porn is in some sense 'real' (but evolutionary 'maladaptive' because it's not actual sex - or to be logical, it does not result in reproduction, as from an evolutionary point of view, the only value of sex is if it results in reproduction), and at the same time, you claim (contrary to David Chalmers) that even matrix style virtual reality porn would not be real.

Thirdly, you ignore the benefits of porn, such as countering the feminist brainwashing that young women are chaste puritans, and focusing on hot young females (given that it is market driven, so even the 'MILF' niche is made up of 25 year old women). No doubt porn raises men's standards and lowers the average pussy price of women, and that's a good thing. It's why feminists hate it. Porn culture probably does lead to a loosening of female sexual 'morals' too, and thus make it easier for men to have real sex. Again, it's why feminists hate it.

Not to mention you ignore the science, such as that long term abstination from masturbation (and sex) actually lowers testosterone (as well as increasing health risks such as prostate problems). And as opposed to that, you actually swallow feminists psuedo science which most of the NoFap movement is based upon.

The AF said...

Famous London art gallery puts up woke warnings on paintings, including Gauguin's 'Nevermore' because it depicted his 15 year old wife.


The AF said...

As far as the commentator above is concerned, he may have some valid points about the war in the Ukraine. Sadly, from everything I've read, including multiple reports from Russian incels, Russia is one of the most cucked places on Earth.

True, the LBGT agenda isn't allowed to be pushed down children's throats, but that's only one aspect of 'feminism', and as I've explained before, it's only a useful tool for feminists in the West to present the inverse of reality - that we live in 'sexually progressive and liberal times'. Russia (largely down to femiservatives) does it sort of the other way. They crack down on homosexuals and transexuals, and present themselves as the defenders of decency (while any rational male is afraid to go near a young female in case of falling foul of a variety of increasingly draconian laws and punishments on the books).

In terms of the Sexual Trade Union, and the criminalization of (normal) male sexuality, Russia is now about as bad as it gets. And Russian prisons are no joke either.

Eivind Berge said...

Apes masturbate? No, they don’t. That myth is established only because “we” don’t distinguish between touching yourself and self-inducing ejaculation. Monkey’s don’t usually do the latter, but low-status males may stimulate themselves in order to be ready for transient sexual opportunities. That is adaptive, the opposite of what human males do which serves as a completed substitute for mating and cuts into their fitness. Only because society could care less when men waste their sexuality do we use the word “masturbate” for both. By the way, it is also silly to use the same word for female masturbation, which is similarly innocuous. But it turns out the English language is wise enough to have a derogatory name for male masturbators only. We call them wankers, which fully captures the bad sense. Monkeys aren’t wankers and women can’t be either, but men can and that is deservedly considered a bad thing.

Not to mention you ignore the science, such as that long term abstination from masturbation (and sex) actually lowers testosterone (as well as increasing health risks such as prostate problems).

I don’t ignore this, but address it by sex not masturbation! It is absurd to blame lack of masturbation for problems which sex provides a superior remedy for. Also, the evolutionary purpose of human sexuality isn’t just reproduction but bonding and love, all of which are degraded by wanking.

About that art... absolute clown world. Not just Gauguin, but “a 'woke' new label on the Manet masterpiece A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. It warns viewers of the 'unsettling' presence of a man.”

Yeah, we get that our existence is unsettling to this society. Masculinity is incompatible with this world, and I wish men wouldn’t have the slave mentality which accepts the hate against us. Slave mentality is what is wrong with men. Anything to do with feminism, most men just drop down and worship, including when directly targeted themselves such as the Norwegian former defense minister. They take it as unquestionable that of course an 18-year-old girl has more power than any man, not just sexually but politically too and that’s the way it should be according to all the normies. Any feminist whim is literally their law, including for male lawmakers, who can’t possibly conceive of an alternative perspective. Male sexualists recognize (young) female sexual power, but we do not think we need to let them make unilateral sex laws too.

Young women do often enjoy sex, but at this point we have to assume they will turn around and redefine it to abuse so they can leverage feminist power when they get older and their sexual power fades. It does not matter how loving was the relationship and how enthusiastically they consented nor how respectfully the man behaved; when social pressure is so strong to redefine it to abuse, that’s what we should expect some 10-30 years down the line. The official female perspective on sexuality is that everything is abuse. This is not true at least for young women, but it is the cultural truth in which we are situated, where feminism reigns supreme and the male view might as well not exist. With some luck civilization will collapse and take feminism down with it before our lovers turn into accusers, but that is the only way I see out of this nightmare.

Jack said...

Young women do often enjoy sex, but at this point we have to assume they will turn around and redefine it to abuse so they can leverage feminist power when they get older and their sexual power fades. It does not matter how loving was the relationship and how enthusiastically they consented nor how respectfully the man behaved; when social pressure is so strong to redefine it to abuse, that’s what we should expect some 10-30 years down the line.

That is what make any kind of long-term relationship (including marriage of course) so disappointing these days.

It is interesting to note that literary fiction has lost touch with reality in this respect. Writers still churn out novels depicting romantic and sexual relationships as though things were still like they were half a century ago. Movies still embrace the myth too.

The root of the evil, or if you want the limiting factor, is women's premature ageing. Once women hit the wall they blame the whole world starting with men. Feminism could be outdone but not ageing. In the past ageing was a sort of taboo. In this age of digital photography ageing is staring every one (every woman & man) in the face. The worm of feminism was in Nature's apple from the start.

Anonymous said...

A question has occurred to me. Did anyone back in the 70's and 80's predict the current paedohysteria? I include the fuss now made about older male/younger adult female age gaps.
My hunch is that if you asked most people, they'd have said that things would continue much as they were. A few might have said things would liberalize further, but no-one seems to have predicted that things would get so strict.
Thoughts, gentlemen>

Eivind Berge said...

I think there has been too much trust all along. At every stage the tendency was to trust the feminists with no thought to their greed for always criminalizing more and more of sexuality. We probably need to go back to 10 as the age of consent in order to have a decent buffer, because they clearly can't be satisfied with anything. Now I see people freaking out that 18 is "pedophile-adjacent" and therefore should be taboo too, so we obviously can't draw lines on the assumption that they will be respected. Borderline cases will always be sucked in plus adult women can be "groomed" and "yes means yes" isn't even valid anymore because women can never consent to anything that they might regret later. There was great wisdom in having these limits and definitions set far BELOW what is reasonable. That way there is room for hysteria without cutting too much into normal relations.

The AF said...

As far as the 70's and early 80's are concerned, I think the general feeling was that society would become increasingly sexually tolerant, and that the age of consent would likely come down. In the UK it was considered a legal fiction, at least regarding teen girls and older men. And I'm sure NOBODY thought that old men would be hounded today by the courts, and regarded as subhuman beasts by the public, for having consenting sex with 14 year olds when they themselves were young men in the 60's and 70's.

However, by the mid 80's, the feminists and femiservatives were increasingly joining together and NGOs such as ECPAT were gaining strength and forging a steely resolve to raise the age of consent. If the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child had been passed in the 90's instead of the 80's, the NGOs would likely have succeeded in bringing in a global age of consent of 18, but instead they met opposition, and they had to settle for setting 18 as the definition of a child, and by extension, child pornography laws.

When the Internet took off in the 90's, I believed, and I'm sure many others did, that it would actually increase liberal attitudes to teen sexuality. Obviously the very opposite happened. That was in part due to that UN Convention that defined 18 as the minimum age for porn (itself ridiculously inflated to include any 'sexualized image'). So the idea that it was forbidden to lust after even 17 year olds, quickly permeated through society, at the same time as moral panics over some high profile cases of psychopathic child abusers such as the Belgian Dutrox and in the UK, the murder of Sara Payne.

Milan Horvath said...

We probably need to go back to 10 as the age of consent in order to have a decent buffer, because they clearly can't be satisfied with anything. Now I see people freaking out that 18 is "pedophile-adjacent".

I think that, it would be satisfactory to just expunge concept of US style AOC laws (statutory rape) from our criminal codes
and going back to state of things when rape is rape and non-violent abuse is abuse.
It was also good (I think this WAS possible in Brazil and Italy) that in some countries court could decide to refrain from conviction if it was not in interest of protected person under AOC. (something like primum non nocere).

...and whether someone predicted present-day hysteria? - I am pretty curious about that too....
Foucault maybe?...
but certainly not to extent when young adults could be considered children when it suits to our "moral guardians", and consent can be withdrawn after months
(maybe even Catharine MacKinnon in her wettest dreams did not dreamt about future we live in today)


But what is taking shape, which is why it is important to discuss the problem of children, is a new penal and legislative system which will not only punish presumed infractions of the general laws of decency but more importantly will protect populations or segments thereof considered to be especially fragile. This means that the legislator will no longer try to justify his measures by proposing to defend the universal decency of humanity. Instead he will claim that there are those for whom the sexuality of others presents a permanent threat; those being children on the brink of an adult sexuality that will be foreign and threatens to hurt them. Hence a legislation arises calling upon the notion of a fragile, or "high-risk", population with a psychiatric or psychological body of knowledge tainted with a vulgarized brand of psychoanalysis.

Sexuality will become the threat looming above all social bonds, relations among generations as among individuals; On this shadow, on this phantom, on this fear the power structure will assume control by means of a seemingly generous and blanket legislation thanks largely to a series of timely interventions that will probably involve judicial institutions supported by the medical profession. And there will arise a new order of sexual control: in the second half of the twentieth century sex will be decriminalized only to reappear as a danger, and a universal one at that. There lies the real danger.

BTW-just came to mind while writing here
When Ukrainian men of military age were prevented to leave their country to be eventually forced to fight and die for corrupt shithole like Ukraine (and it's puppet-master geopolitical interests) against other corrupt oligarchic reactionary shithole(Russia),
no one of those progressive gender quota demanding female activists did not objected to it.
Not a word. What a surprise.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad I stimulated discussion with my question about who, if anyone, predicted paedohysteria.
Normies of course claim that kids are being "sexualized". The difficulty is, that they are partly right. At the same time paedohysteria shows no sign of abating, very small children are being exposed to drag story time, books about gay parenting and even how to have gay sex-everyone knows the stuff I mean.
See Bitchute, WeGotAProblem-https://www.bitchute.com/video/cjtcXFxff3I/.
I wrestle with how to square the circle. Kids are being exposed to sexual topics and material that I myself don't want them to be, yet it is ALSO true that they are being infantilised and having their sexual agency completely denied in other contexts.

Anonymous said...

PS Milan is completely right about women conveniently being exempted from military service. Funny how it still women and children when it comes to war and the need to rescue people-and who does most of the rescuing?
I have fantasies that if I were a Ukrainian man and expected to potentially turn myself into worm food for Zelensky's political career and bank balance, I'd say, Thanks for the gun, and turn it on those who gave it to me. It's an idle fantasy I know.

Eivind Berge said...

Sexuality comes from within. Kids don't get more sexual because you "sexualize" them, and sadly the effect of porn culture is exactly the opposite because as I keep saying it is an evolutionary trap which leads to asexuality in males.

Think about it: would grannies be more sexual if you "sexualized" them? Would it have any effect to run granny porn 24/7? No, they would remain what they are, and the few men who get excited about them would be less so due to wanking.

The expectation that a culture of pretend-sex leads to more sex is just another variety of the wanker's delusion. The men think they get sexual value from wanking, feminists think girls are abused by the same voodoo, and conservatives falsely imagine that kids get "sexualized." Sexuality is a very strong force coming from within, which is the only place it can come from. It cannot be culturally created, but sadly it can be dampened via porn and masturbation, which along with "abuse" hysteria have proven to be a more virulent force of sexual suppression than the more direct cultural kinds which openly preached sex-hostility.

Eivind Berge said...

That said, there are some fringe cases. You can influence some kids to think they need gender reassignment by taking advantage of some anxiety or dysphoria or whatever, and you can promote more expression of homosexuality which was already latent. But the limits are pretty clear. I wouldn't worry about any of this except irreversible mutilations, and we SHOULD worry about male masturbation which society currently thinks is fine.

I watched the Bitchute video. A whole lot of hysteria about “nonces” who want to teach kids about sex. The content of this supposedly harmful show looks similar to what I myself was exposed to on children’s TV in the 1980s, albeit without the gay slant. Absolutely nothing to worry about. By the time I was the target audience of 5+ for this I had already been masturbating for years which I had figured out on my own without any external “sexualization,” complete with fantasizing about women and girls. What I could have benefited from was a lecture about the dangers of masturbation, plus sex-positivity about sex with older women as soon as possible for boys, neither of which these hysterical people support. They provide no value whatsoever wanting to keep kids away from “sexualization,” which neither has that effect nor is a defensible ideal, and they fail to worry about actually harmful things except maybe a little about making kids “transition,” which I think has peaked anyway on its own (just look up detransition testimonials which seem to be indicate a growing movement away from that nonsense, not thanks to conservatives but because humans just aren't that malleable).

Eivind Berge said...

Here's more information about that family sex show which conservatives are so worked up about:


A fun and silly performance about the painfully AWKWARD subject of sex, exploring names and functions, boundaries, consent, pleasure, queerness, sex, gender and relationships. Using real life bodies, personal stories, songs and movement, The Family Sex Show puts the good stuff at the forefront of conversation and imagines a future where there is no shame; but a celebration of difference, equality and liberation.

ThisEgg invites you to bring your parents, bring your children, friends, lovers and bring your whole self. Made in consultation with the School of Sexuality Education, this is a show for everyone.

Good to know
Running time: 1 hour
Age suitability: 5+
Content: This show contains nakedness.

If knowing exactly what happens in the show might make you more comfortable, we will have a pre-show document available 28 April 2022.

If there is a problem here, it is the feminist "consent" education, probably telling them to report rape and abuse left and right before even negotiating boundaries. That part I would not want my kids exposed to, but the "sexualization" is not an issue at all. I can only shake my head at conservatives missing the real problem with feminism (which they go along with supporting all the laws) while attacking complete non-issues. In the final analysis, conservatives are more of a threat to children and us all because they don't just want to lock them up for fake abuse but desexualize them too.

Milan Horvath said...

I see that people are frequently complaining that our culture and children are too sexualised today,
when I was listening some 80s music videos, I saw frequently in comments section things like no nudity, no drugs just pure talent then and blabla.

People are complaining nowadays about films like Cuties,,,,hahahaha....look at European films from 70s,80s, early 90s.
I am not even sure if I could name those films without causing problems nowadays.

But I think that, what is actually problem these people are referring to (and not be able to grasp it correctly) is not sexualisation itself but vulgarity connected to it today, which is IMO result of prudish perception of sexuality as something filthy, depraved, dangerous.

Our society is IMO being not sexualised but more vulgarised instead.

Milan Horvath said...

If there is a problem here, it is the feminist "consent" education, probably telling them to report rape and abuse left and right before even negotiating boundaries. That part I would not want my kids exposed to, but the "sexualization" is not an issue at all. I can only shake my head at conservatives missing the real problem with feminism (which they go along with supporting all the laws) while attacking complete non-issues. In the final analysis, conservatives are more of a threat to children and us all because they don't just want to lock them up for fake abuse but desexualize them too.

Absolute, total agreement with this.........this is real problem which I have with present-day sex-ed it's not depraved as conservatives are saying- it's neo-puritan shit with liberal sprinkle .

Eivind Berge said...

I agree about the vulgarity. If they attacked some of that they might have a point, but conservatives are by now wedded to the idea that sexuality itself is the enemy, that childhood is a Garden of Eden where it does not exist in any form unless put there by "nonces." There can't possibly be any good motive to teach kids about sex or even expose them to nudity, so any distinction as to how tastefully it is done is completely lost on them.

Milan Horvath said...

Yeah... speaking about conservatives and sex-ed, it reminded me one story from Czech emigrant living in US, that brought old Czech children's book to his son's school x-mas party... it might be an exaggeration or not IDK.


translation is pretty shitty, so I will try to translate/correct essential part myself:

"Can the children look at the book?" The teacher interrupted, clearly aware of the boredom and indifference on the children's faces.
"Sure," I said, circulating a book about Pepik.
The children's book was more interesting than my lecture. It was full of pictures. I kept talking, but no one listened to me. The children turned the pages, pointed to the pictures, and whispered softly. And then, suddenly, they stopped whispering. There was complete silence. Their cheeks froze, terror, horror, shock.
I also fell silent. Sweat broke out on my forehead. I remembered the chapter in the book that describes the differences between Pepík and Janička. Pepík was smartly, undoubtedly an academically painted on the one side, and Janička on the other. Not only do they not have a veiled belly button in accordance with the school rules, but on Pepík you can also see a pindík(diminutive term for penis) and on Janička a pipinka(diminutive term for vagina)!
How could I forget that! The children just stared dumbly.
And then one boy laughed and suddenly everyone laughed. The hands holding the book rose and the mothers present saw Pepík and Janička. They almost fainted. Apparently they had never seen a penis and a vagina before. It gets tough.
Some mothers continued to faint, others wanted to crucify me on the spot. The teacher had to protect me with her own body. Only escape could save me. I grabbed my son and that disgusting, naughty, perverted book and fled from raging mothers.
Poor son! He was almost expelled from school then. The teacher and the headmaster miraculously managed to calm the hysterical mothers and outraged fathers, and I avoided both criminal and civil prosecution. Of course, I was never invited to any school party again.

My question is- what kind of people will grow out of this environment?
How they will perceive sexuality,nudity, human body?

Milan Horvath said...

Just for fun.......


Anonymous said...

@ Eivind-You are probably right about the fringe nature of promoting gender confusion and homosexuality. However, even a few kids "tricked" into gender reassignment is a few too many. I was also thinking of simply the distress caused to small children with some of these efforts-ever seen the photo of the little boy with tears in his eyes when looking at the gay guy in the parade with whatever he'd done to himself?
I'm sure the kid will get over it but it does seem very inconsiderate to parade around like that.
What I'm calling sexualization and what you and others here are calling the same, might be two different things.
In any case, the inability of modern society to acknowledge that men naturally prefer nubile teens, and that quite often the feeling is mutual, is indeed a massive fault line. That notion is so very closely tied to the power structures of the English-speaking countries and the Netherlands that it's as if there'd be anarchy without it.
To be clear, I share the frustration of seeing paedohysterical numbskulls fulminate about Cuties when Euro films from as recently as the 90's had far more for them to complain about.

Eivind Berge said...

The inability of modern society to acknowledge that men naturally prefer nubile teens, and that quite often the feeling is mutual, is indeed a massive fault line. That notion is so very closely tied to the power structures of the English-speaking countries and the Netherlands [and Norway etc.] that it's as if there'd be anarchy without it.

Yeah, well said! That's really how anathema we are, as if promoting anarchy from the point of view of society. This is how much they hate our guts, indeed the very essence of masculinity and our souls.

And sadly men learn to hate themselves instead of the feminists and police. Just now on Quora this question popped up...

"Is it weird to find someone in their late teens attractive as a 20-year-old? I only feel attraction to them, dating is something I’m not all that interested in at the moment."


If you're in the mood for doomscrolling or even making some futile attempts to correct the situation by answering these TRULY gender-confused people whom conservatives leave out in the cold, check out some of the related questions too:

"What should I do if I am 16 years old and I am attracted to someone who is in their 20’s?"

"Is it bad that I am a 14 year old female and find 20 year old men attractive?"

"Is it normal for an 18 year old to be attracted to 16 and 17 year olds? I know I can't date them, and I don't try, but should I feel bad for even finding them attractive?"

"Is it normal for a 20 year old woman to be attracted to teen boys?"

"Is it normal if I'm attracted to a 20-year-old if I'm 15?"

"As a women, do you think a 22 yr old female can find attraction in a 16 year old girl? I know it’s illegal in some places but is the psychical attraction possible?"

"What causes a man in his 20s to fail completely to attract women in their 20s, yet can easily attract women who are in their 40s, 50s and even 60s?"

"Is it normal for me to be attracted to older men (30+) at 16? I’m not attracted to boys my age at all. Is something wrong?"

"Is it problematic for a 21-year-old woman to primarily be attracted to guys that are in their mid 30s and early 40s? I only am interested in dating older guys because I converse and get along better with them."

"Do most 20 year old men find teenage girls attractive?"

"Is it normal for a 20 year old to be attracted to a 15 year old without acting on it?"

"Is it wrong for a 20-year-old guy to still find 15-17 year old girls attractive or is it excusable because I’m only a few years older?"

The AF said...

"In the final analysis, conservatives are more of a threat to children and us all because they don't just want to lock them up for fake abuse but desexualize them too."

Feminists want to desexualize teenagers too. It was feminists who came up with the phrases 'sexualization of minors', 'hypersexualization' etc.

Are there any feminists who still believe that it's ok for 14 year olds to bang each other? Seems to me feminists and Conservatives are completely on the same page here. I mean, elements of 'the Left' like to see drag queens with names like 'FlowJob' teaching 6 year olds about queer identity, but I'm not sure if it's 'feminists' who are in favor of this. I'm certainly not.

The AF said...

Returning to the question as to whether anybody in the 70's or 80's (or more correctly, the 60's and 70's) could predict the paedohysteria of today, I'm sure there were many in the midst of the sexual revolution who thought things were 'going too far', or even were in total agreement with the new liberal attitudes, but could see that there would be an inevitable backlash against it all.

I think one of the key events in Britain was the infamous march of the (real) paedophile liberation activists in the late 70's (I think), led by Eivind's hero Tom O'Carroll. That resulted in a real moral panic and backlash and gave feminists the opportunity to start the inflation of the term paedophilia combined with a 'crackdown' on paedophiles.

So in the late 70's in GB, the age of consent was essentially 14, and for certain if the parents didn't object, the chances of prosecution were almost zero (until 50 years later). 16 year olds appeared topless in national newspapers, and across Europe, 16 (or even 15) was the minimum age for pornography. If that wasn't good enough for you, you could move somehwere like the Netherlands were the age of consent was 12, or Spain 13 etc.

But the 'boy lovers' wanted more. They publicly demanded that (real) children should be allowed to have sex with adults, creating a backlash and a questioning as to whether 'things had gone too far'.

Of course, anyone understanding Sexual Trade Union theory would understand that the sexual liberalism of the 60's and 70's would create a backlash from feminists seeking to preserve their sexual value, but as I wasn't around then to popularize the theory, probably few did.

Milan Horvath said...

I am not British nor I have lived in those times but I think that PIE was rather marginal movement that was used by moral crusaders as bogey in attempt(unfortunately successful) to revert sexual liberation. I wouldn't blame them for what happened.
I am sure, that even without TOC moral crusaders would find way to achieve their ends.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't blame Tom O'Carroll either. He was a (rather marginal, yes) radical in the 1970s, back when society was pretty reasonable about sex, fighting a cause I never would have gotten behind except society went insane to where he is one of the only reasonable voices left. In a way he is less radical now, paradoxically. Their now called MAP movement is needed just so 18-year-olds can feel normal about attraction to 17-year-olds... so who cares what most radical positions some of them hold? It's been a slow frog boil to here, but somehow we arrived where all of this is considered "pedophilia" and is just about equally hated and punished. TOC is deservedly an ally, and if we didn't embrace people like him, who would we have?

Milan Horvath said...

Despite I appreciate some work of him,and his courage, I do worry that proclaiming TOC as an ally would be something like trying to race with this
while having connected to that car 9m long camper.

That car represents current situation of anybody who wants to soften sex laws, and TOC publicly proclaimed as an ally represents that heavy 9m long camper (while you are not even huge fan of camping).

Ostracising, or making him "untouchable"- absolutely NO, ....but an ally????
I rather consider him as source of interesting articles/thoughts/informations, but that's all.

Eivind Berge said...

When journalists ask me what other activists I am aligned with, I am tempted to say TOC simply because there are so few others with a public name and persuasive, clear writing. However, I refrain from that temptation (so far at least). So in that sense, I agree with your metaphor. I do not publicly proclaim him an ally and instead go with someone like Kershnar or Rind when asked. Here in the comment section I can be more loose though since no journalist bothers to read this far.

Another day, another landmark piece of feminist legislation, this time in Indonesia:


The final draft of the law includes prison terms of up to 12 years for crimes of physical sexual abuse, both in marriage and outside, 15 years for sexual exploitation, nine years for forced marriage, which includes child marriage, and four years for circulating non-consensual sexual content.

And they are normalizing killing men for "sexual grooming":


Between 2016 and 2021, Herry sexually groomed the 13 girls, who were between 12 and 16 years old, and impregnated eight of his victims, a judge said in February. Some suffered injuries from his rape.

Whether there was any real rape in there is unclear to me (seems unlikely) and in any case the normies don't care about the difference. They are still a little bit squeamish about introducing the death penalty, but when they do, it will definitely be applied for "grooming" a 16-year-old.

I do not think my last words will be "I wish I didn't speak of TOC as an ally" -- which would not have made the slightest difference to where we are headed.

Anonymous said...

A hard pass at trying to correct the groupthink contained in those questions, Eivind.😃
OTOH, it's encouraging to see youngsters themselves expressing discomfort at the norms laid down by society.
Social media has mostly produced a climate of fear in which people censor themselves to such an extent that they have to ask these sorts of dumb questions. They say there are no dumb questions, but sorry, some questions are fucking stupid. Remember, though, that in the earlier years of widespread internet, discussion of "paedophilia" was much freer, and maybe in the long run, things will come full circle, with real world results accompanying this.
Maybe I'm grasping at straws but I think of the Black Death, The Establishment introduced weird laws to try to counter the increased power of the common man owing to labour shortages, but in the long run these were futile.

Eivind Berge said...

This is very good, about feminist rape law:


Not On Record
2.47K subscribers

Criminal Defence Lawyers Joseph Neuberger, Chris Assie and YouTube personality, legal researcher and host of the UnTrue Crime podcast Diana Davison, sit down and discuss the aftermath of their trials and the emerging and alarming changes to our legal system. A behind the scenes inside look into real court room drama.

Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com

Jack said...

Eivind, today I wanked for so long I'd be prepared to acknowledge some harm in masturbation. I took 80mg of Sildenafil at noon local time (South East Asia). I had my regular girl in my room at 14:00. Good fuck but didn't finish. I went to the infamous street near here and sessioned two more girls. Didn't finish with any of them either. All 3 girls around 45 euros.

Then back to my room to have some sleep as I'd had a couple of glasses too many. When I woke up, wanking to porn for hours. What a dumb life! But isn't all life dumb? It is when you get old and you've seen (or imagined) it all.

By the way, yachts of oligarchs are being seized all over the place. When was it one of the oligarchs got meetooed or sentenced for sex crime? They never were. The bastards may have diplomatic status. Fact is, some men still get young top pussy in spite of the horrid laws.

Milan Horvath said...

By the way, yachts of oligarchs are being seized all over the place. When was it one of the oligarchs got meetooed or sentenced for sex crime? They never were. The bastards may have diplomatic status. Fact is, some men still get young top pussy in spite of the horrid laws.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi

Jack said...

Sometimes technicalities still play out in favour of accused men (here French writer Madzneff):


The AF said...

Eivind, today I wanked for so long

Well done Jack!

The AF said...

Their now called MAP movement is needed just so 18-year-olds can feel normal about attraction to 17-year-olds..

No we don't need their effing 'MAP' movement.

All it does is validate the absurd idea that began in America that 17 year olds are off limits and 'paedophilia', FFS.

Every single man on Earth with a functioning dick is attracted to 17 year olds. But in their aspie wisdom, they somehow manage to convince society that acknowledging this fact is 'paedo rights'.

Meanwhile Germany has passed its own 'Turing Law', so that all the middle-aged pederasts who banged 14 year old twinks in the 70's and convicted under anti-homosexual laws get pardoned and even compensation (not that many of them are still alive).

vintologi.se said...

War of aggression can be a good thing. Rome did the right thing when they expanded their borders.


Anonymous said...

Meanwhile Germany has passed its own 'Turing Law', so that all the middle-aged pederasts who banged 14 year old twinks in the 70's and convicted under anti-homosexual laws get pardoned and even compensation (not that many of them are still alive).

The day the men convicted because of the carceral feminism today get compensation, all the Western states will go bankrupt...